2024-11-19
Forms of violent contention:
Riots and armed protests: spontaneous brawls, opportunistic looting,
Terrorism: non-conventional attacks intended to advance a political goal
Civil War: sustained organized violence between parties within a state
Revolution: complete overthrow of a government
Violence and conventional politics aren’t mutually exclusive!
Violence and conventional politics aren’t mutually exclusive!
Narodnaya Volya, considered the first “modern terrorist group”, viewed themselves as a political party
Militant non-state actors often find themselves in a position to govern: Hamas, ISIS, the Tamil Tigers etc. have all had real or de facto states at some point
Violence and conventional politics aren’t mutually exclusive!
Narodnaya Volya, considered the first “modern terrorist group”, viewed themselves as a political party
Militant non-state actors often find themselves in a position to govern: Hamas, ISIS, the Tamil Tigers etc. have all had real or de facto states at some point
Political parties and movement organizations sometimes turn to violence tactics, or maintain militant and political wings simultaneously.
Many of the dynamics here are the same, but there are some differences of degree at least:
High stakes: perpetrators and victims have much higher costs for participation (or non-participation) compared to peaceful protests. Demands are also more likely to be absolutist: state overthrow, territorial control etc.
High barriers: sustained organized violence requires more resources, better coordination, more unity
High levels of institutionalization: militants are hard to disperse even after a conflict ends.
Why do groups turn to violence?
Groups use political violence to settle long-standing grievances and private grudges
Weakened or resource-starved organizations are unable to maintain internal discipline
Opportunists take advantage of weak/indifferent states to seize territory or resources
In general: non-violence requires more participation. So unpopular groups are less able to take advantage of it.
External supporters may encourage violence regardless of impacts on the movement itself
The presence of “lootable” resources can lead groups to prefer a smaller coalition
Moderates and radicals compete for support.
Both repressions and concessions can shift the balance toward violent actors
Segregation and inequality during British colonial era
ANC founded in 1912 to lobby for black interests
1948 elections lead to a formalization and expansion of these policies under the rubric of apartheid
South African police open fire on a group of pass card protesters, killing 69
The government responds to subsequent protests by banning the ANC and PAC and detaining leaders
ANC responds by forming a militant wing translated as “Spear of the Nation” to engage in sabotage and potentially guerrilla warfare
Receives funding and support from USSR and recently independent African states
At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. — Nelson Mandela
Mandela arrested in 1962
Most of the ANC leadership arrested in 1963
Remaining leadership operated in secret or abroad through 1960s to 1990s
Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania broke away from the ANC over differences surrounding multiracialism